TASCAM 34, 34B tape question

[Daniel]

Good morning.

My TASCAM 34B is biased for Quantegy 456. Is it ok to use Quantegy 406/407
as well ? Quantegy lit says that the 406/407 is "bias compatible" with the
456. Is it safe to say then, that the 34B is biased for the 456, 406 and 407
?

On a related note, I've read that the higher grade tapes (GP9, 456 etc) wear
the heads faster (speed and all things being equal) than say lesser grade
tapes like the 406/407 ... Would this be accurate and if yes, why ?

Thank you for your time,

Daniel

[Rick Ruskin]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:49:09 GMT, "Daniel" >
wrote:

>Good morning.
>
>My TASCAM 34B is biased for Quantegy 456. Is it ok to use Quantegy 406/407
>as well ? Quantegy lit says that the 406/407 is "bias compatible" with the
>456. Is it safe to say then, that the 34B is biased for the 456, 406 and 407
>?
>
>On a related note, I've read that the higher grade tapes (GP9, 456 etc) wear
>the heads faster (speed and all things being equal) than say lesser grade
>tapes like the 406/407 ... Would this be accurate and if yes, why ?
>
>Thank you for your time,
>
>Daniel

The 406/407 will work but I'd expect it to exhibit a bit less top-end
than 456. (456 requires more bias.) I used to align my old 16 track
for 406 but actually use 456 because the resultant under-biasing gave
more headroom and things came back a tad brighter on playback.


http://liondogmusic.com

[Rick Ruskin]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:49:09 GMT, "Daniel" >
wrote:

>Good morning.
>
>My TASCAM 34B is biased for Quantegy 456. Is it ok to use Quantegy 406/407
>as well ? Quantegy lit says that the 406/407 is "bias compatible" with the
>456. Is it safe to say then, that the 34B is biased for the 456, 406 and 407
>?
>
>On a related note, I've read that the higher grade tapes (GP9, 456 etc) wear
>the heads faster (speed and all things being equal) than say lesser grade
>tapes like the 406/407 ... Would this be accurate and if yes, why ?
>
>Thank you for your time,
>
>Daniel

The 406/407 will work but I'd expect it to exhibit a bit less top-end
than 456. (456 requires more bias.) I used to align my old 16 track
for 406 but actually use 456 because the resultant under-biasing gave
more headroom and things came back a tad brighter on playback.


http://liondogmusic.com

[Daniel]

"Rick Ruskin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:49:09 GMT, "Daniel" >
> wrote:
>
> >Good morning.
> >
> >My TASCAM 34B is biased for Quantegy 456. Is it ok to use Quantegy
406/407
> >as well ? Quantegy lit says that the 406/407 is "bias compatible" with
the
> >456. Is it safe to say then, that the 34B is biased for the 456, 406 and
407
> >?
> >
> >On a related note, I've read that the higher grade tapes (GP9, 456 etc)
wear
> >the heads faster (speed and all things being equal) than say lesser grade
> >tapes like the 406/407 ... Would this be accurate and if yes, why ?
> >
> >Thank you for your time,
> >
> >Daniel
>
> The 406/407 will work but I'd expect it to exhibit a bit less top-end
> than 456. (456 requires more bias.) I used to align my old 16 track
> for 406 but actually use 456 because the resultant under-biasing gave
> more headroom and things came back a tad brighter on playback.

Alright. Thanks very much.

~Daniel :)

>
>
> http://liondogmusic.com

[Daniel]

"Rick Ruskin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:49:09 GMT, "Daniel" >
> wrote:
>
> >Good morning.
> >
> >My TASCAM 34B is biased for Quantegy 456. Is it ok to use Quantegy
406/407
> >as well ? Quantegy lit says that the 406/407 is "bias compatible" with
the
> >456. Is it safe to say then, that the 34B is biased for the 456, 406 and
407
> >?
> >
> >On a related note, I've read that the higher grade tapes (GP9, 456 etc)
wear
> >the heads faster (speed and all things being equal) than say lesser grade
> >tapes like the 406/407 ... Would this be accurate and if yes, why ?
> >
> >Thank you for your time,
> >
> >Daniel
>
> The 406/407 will work but I'd expect it to exhibit a bit less top-end
> than 456. (456 requires more bias.) I used to align my old 16 track
> for 406 but actually use 456 because the resultant under-biasing gave
> more headroom and things came back a tad brighter on playback.

Alright. Thanks very much.

~Daniel :)

>
>
> http://liondogmusic.com